채무부존재확인
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
As the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided February 21, 2019, changed the maximum working age of urban daily workers from 60 to 65 years according to the previous precedents, the Defendant asserts that when calculating the Defendant’s lost income, the Defendant’s application of the maximum working age to the end of June 27, 204, when applying the Defendant’s property damage to the judgment subject to a retrial by 188,974, 269 won, which was recognized as the judgment subject to a retrial, is KRW 22,929,886,86, based on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the instant case subject to retrial.
The term “when a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition which forms the basis of a judgment has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition” as a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act means the cases where a judgment or administrative disposition which has become a basis of a judgment has become legally binding, or which has become a basis of fact-finding in a final judgment has become final and conclusive and retroactively changed by another judgment or administrative disposition thereafter.
(1) The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided November 25, 1994 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da248909 Decided November 25, 1994). The purport of the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided the ground for retrial is that it is consistent with the empirical rule to view that the maximum working age of physical labor can be operated by the age of 65, barring any special circumstance, as the social and economic structure and living conditions of the Republic of Korea rapidly improved and developed, and the legal system has improved and improved, as the case is indicated in its holding.